Yes ... You should see those faces. For example, a devotee asked a question about her children during the lecture. Later, I talked with her, and I mentioned I wouldn't want to have children because I have a metabolyic disease that would most likely cause retardation and deformities, and I wouldn't want to do that to anyone. She looked at me severely, said "it is part of Vedic society to have children" and looked very offended. And so on. That wouldn't exactly be hell then anyway. I just don't see a way to be positively geared (in the above sense), about anything. I don't recall ever doing anything because I liked it or were attracted to it, but only because I wanted to avoid something else. I have often tried to be more like others, and tried to do things in order to enjoy them (in an effort to avoid being branded as abnormal). I went to music concerts, ate particular foods, danced etc. but I could never feel any real satisfaction from that, I was always puzzled by the way others would lavishly describe how wonderful doing this or that was. In fact, those ventures into "enjoying myself" have been the most frustrating experiences of my life.
but such exchanges can be lodged in a host of contexts. For instance your admission could have been interpreted as an attack on her pursuit of motherhood (which, btw is a dominant sort of sub -text in many communities - namely muci motherhood vs yukta vairagya - there's more than one thing you can say to a mother that will warrant a snappish "its part of vedic society) why not? spiritual aspirations aside, if a person wants to be happy, they have to have a clue what they are attracted to (of course we can re-introduce spiritual aspirations if we want to discuss what things are more effective at making one happy than others)
Sure ... Anyway, there seemed to have been no scope to discuss it, she was adamant to have her way. And this is how it usually is, that I am wrong and offending. In my opinion, a crucial part of a hellish condition is to not know the truth about God, or at least being dissatisfied about/with God. If one can sing praises (ie. knows how to and has reason to), then such ignorance or dissatisfaction are not the case, and one isn't exactly in hell anyway. As unhappy as this makes me, I seem to be clueless about what attracts me. At least I don't make the transition from being attracted to something to wanting it. It's seems natural for most people to want what they are attracted to, but I don't. I see something and think "Ah, pretty thing" and move on.
Signal, If you can,t afford to travel all the time, then don't. It doesn't mean you're not part of that religion. How so? You make it sound as though religious people don't have mind sof their own, and are telepathically linked somehow. Maybe religion isn't for you then. What would you say they were commited to ? jan. Well, they definitely don't look like that to me. They seem to present themselves in a manner suggesting, sometimes directly saying, that they always knew, or knew immediately upon first contact with the new religion, and that this is how it is supposed to be.[/QUOTE]
You said, in an ideal society there would be no propoganda. Meaning everybody would be more happy with their lot. Such a society could not really exist, as it would be impossible to satisfy everyone, in such away, all the time. When people try to create an ideal society, it is always at the expense of other living beings, and always collapses. To me an ideal society, is where the people in control are intelligent, sober, and God-concious. jan.
If the other religious people do not recognize me as part of their religion, am I a member? I don't think so. Is there even any point in trying to practice a religion if the material circumstances are not favorable for it? See below: No, that wasn't my intention. I meant that they stick together, as a unified front against the outside world. If one religious person dislikes someone, all others within that religion will. If one takes offense at something, all others will. Yes, I am afraid so. I don't know. But the way most people talk about their choice of religion, it is as if they had always known anyway, or they talk about it as if it would have been a matter of an objective, self-evident choice. Doreen commented earlier how I am trying to make this choice by taking myself out of the equation, disregarding my interests. But the way most people describe their choice for religion, it is as if they have taken themselves out of the equation - as if they had objective knowledge, knew objective reality, and then based on that knowledge decided to join a particular religion. I know one person, one person only (and even he is a Buddhist) who said their choice of religion was based on what they liked and were interested in. Everyone else I have ever heard speaks as if they had objective knowledge and knew the Absolute Truth even before committing to a religion. On the other hand, people keep telling me to go by my "interests" and "what attracts" me. What is this? It looks like they are giving me advice that they themselves did not follow to arrive where they are!
Signal, Are you talking about a specific institute, or just religions in general. Because you're objection appears to be on a personal scale. It depends on your religion. If it is centered around God, then yes. And you think this is true for every religion? For most people, I would imagine their religion is based on their culture, for others, I imagine they have become attracted by the philosophy, art, food, etc... of religions that are not indiginous to their culture. I find it strange and unusual to go looking for a religion to join. It's like going out looking for someone to fall in love. Kinda takes the essence . out of it. I think that is your interpretion of their conviction and commitment. What do they say that make you believe this? jan.
no fibbs makes sense (kind of like what religius material says; no false witnessing) no it doesn't it means, we can comprehend reality versus beliefs (if no lies imposed error to understanding) that is what the divide of truth and beliefs has done look at the world, right NOW: mankind is about to push buttons as we speak because that divide is based on each side having their leaders, their preachers and their deceptions, that they maintain. people like you! i prefer, alive and know what life is EQUALLY and thereby capable of making choices, personally based on 'life' and know it ie... if each knew their very life depended upon their choices (actions they impose to existence) be certain, responsibility would have a whole new meaning upon this earth. the starting point of WORLD PEACE is when mankind understands WHAT LIFE IS, that is pure to reality, not beliefs. piece of cake pursue the light (the understanding of what energy is upon mass) p/s.... that is what I DID
I am speaking in general and in personal. And I am not really objecting. It's their religion, they have the say, I am just an outsider. It is true for some religions, and it is probably true for one group of people within any religion. It seems that one has to get the approval of this one group first, in order to progress I suppose it is strange to go looking for a religion to join. It is also an example of deliberate, conscious action. Talk about free will! At some point, I came up with a list of criteria of how "my ideal religion" should be like, and then looked for the best match among the existing ones. I tend to see joining a religion no differently than enrolling to a university. Except that when it comes to joining a religion, the stakes are infinitely high. Perhaps, but their words often confirm such an interpretation. Of course, the way people speak about themselves and their choices also may have to do with self-presentation agendas, and perhaps in an effort to not appear too egotistical, or flimsy, or blind-faithed, they describe their choices as more sophisticated than they actually were. So this would suggest that taking people's own accounts of how they came to choose their religion, and from those accounts trying to extract some instruction on how to choose a religion, is not exactly the most reliable method to use. I might as well settle for BG 7.15-16, and declare the rest to be a divine mystery! Read, for example, Scifes' or NMSquirrel's posts in this thread. And of course Bishadi's.
Signal, Sometime I get the impression you prefer to be an outsider. Is there any truth to that? Religion isn't about other people, it is about developing God-conciousness, that urge, or feeling, that lies within your mind. This is something that I cannot relate to. Can you give some detailed examples? I thought you said you could not define what religion means to you? What was your ideal religion? I suppose that works on paper, and can work in practise. Much like finding love through dating agencies, and the like. It's the modern way. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Do you think it is possible that you are interpreting their testimony? No, i doubt that it is. I will, but not Bishadi's (if you don't mind), I'm all out of paracetemol. You should read 786's reponse. jan.
Yes, there is, because it is only as an outsider that I get some room and freedom to inquire what a religion is. Once one is seen or sees oneself as an "insider", certain inquiries or expressing some doubts becomes off limits. For example, if one goes to religious meetings for a while, and then asks a question like "How can one be sure God exists?", the people there are likely going to feel betrayed, and it will be awkward to stay there. I suppose so, but I get easily overhwelmed by other people. Ever since I can remember, in my life, religion was always first and foremost about other people. If I just think of a religious picture (like a picture of God) or think of chanting, for example, there are other people there in my mental image. And they are not favorably inclined toward me. For example, if one Scientologist doesn't like you, probably no other Scientologist will like you either. Some religions are strict like that, the members very much alike. Such is also typical for cults. The other one group I am referring to are kanisthas. They may be beginners, but they have the power to make a newcomer's stay in the group so unbearable that the beginner will leave on his own accord. So if the newcomer is to stay, he has to gets their approval, or nothing. I actually wrote down a list once: Dualist monotheism; karma and reincarnation; vegan/vegetarian; no sex other than for procreation; applicable 24/7; no doctrinal gray areas or moral compromises; clear definition of what constitutes human action; no gambling; no intoxication; a nice procedure to begin, center, and conclude the day. I know no other way, as despicable as my way may seem to some. Sure, but like I said: their words often confirm such an interpretation. I did, and I replied to it. He proposes a very demanding approach.
Why? Western science would say there is no reason to pursue any of the choices. But further, I disagree. As slow as Western medicine is getting around to the idea, certain medicines work on some people and not others. Chinese medicine is much more based on the idea that one treats the patient not the illness, and spends a great deal of time diagnosing the type of patient, before suggesting treatment, rather than diagnosing only the illness. In fact the same illness will get different names in different individuals. Trainers, working from physiology, will also suggest different training programs to people with different types of bodies. At least the better ones will. These are recent trends in Western science, but nevertheless they are catching on. A heart patient who finds bicycling boring but swimming laps peaceful and joyfull should NOT be bicycling. And the reverse is true. Transcendence has to meet us where we are, incarnated bodies. If it doesn't like that, well it shouldn't have set it in motion - though I suspect causation when the other way. Why? I mean, it will be you participating. It will be you who has to get up before breakfast and chant or take hallucinogens and find your power animal or whatever. How can your interests and attractions be incidental to something you personally will live? Ideas about the right path for everyone seem to me very flimsy and ephemeral, they barely touch the earth anywhere I can see. Passing thoughts. The worst kind of idealism. Nothing compared to the daily impact of a commitment or full participation on a body/soul/heart in the world that has likes and interests and dislikes and proclivities and skills, potentially those given them by a deity. Is there a right person to marry? the one person we should all be married to? What is his or her name?
I couldn't really say. It's how I was raised, it's the only way I know how to think. Interestingly, I have taken to watching a soap-opera, and what is attractive about it is that those people want this and that, and they fight for it - and they spell it all out, sopa-opera meticulously, so that even retards like I can catch on the idea of desiring. Yes ... Are you familiar with William James? He had quite a bit to say about such things, I think you'd like his writing, for example his essay The will to believe, section 10. Agreed. Tihs one takes a bit more courage to agree. Yes, isn't it? How I tend to forget that! I was raised that religion is something one has to do, regardless whether one likes it or not. I haven't overcome that notion yet. Exactly. I have always felt that my interests and attractions were mostly very malleable somehow, unsteady. There was never anything I would die for, and I soon got used to calculating and strategizing how much of my effort something was worth to me. And when you start out with "Would I die for it? No." it's easy to end up at being willing to put no effort into anything. Yet if you listen to people, you can often notice that this is precisely what they imply. "You were such a good girlfriend to him, why can't you be a good girlfriend to me?!" It seems it comes with using the indicative grammatical mood - "This picture is good", "That is a bad job" ...
But how do I get this "vague aroma of myself", given that I can't really apply the shoulds and musts of any normatives?
the vague aroma of one's self (ie one's needs interests and concerns) dictate the the relevance or do-ability of any normatives.... if it was otherwise, commitment to them wouldn't be an issue.
That is strange to me. As if one's own needs, interests and concerns mattered in one's pursuit of spirituality. The only way I can think that they matter is in that they obstruct the execution of spiritual practice. And because they obstruct it, one is supposed to get rid of them; and because they are something to get rid of, they don't really matter. How do a person's needs, interests and concerns play in with the person's pursuit of spirituality - other than in a negative (counter-spiritual) sense? I have some vague notion of Indian people praying etc. for a good rebirth and material opulence, which could be considered an example of tailoring one's spiritual practice according to one's needs, interests and concerns. I have always thought that what they are doing is just too sublime for me to understand, but that it is definitely spiritual.
needs interests and concerns in terms of propensity (which includes likes, as well as dislikes) .. otherwise if one tries to approach the problem with the tactic of getting rid of things (ie purely dislikes) one will not accomplish much (IOW one will effectively get rid of nothing). For instance, even though a man, a woman, a hermit, a socialite, an old person and a young person can all apply themselves to spiritual life, their differences in propensity would spell out different means of application. IOW the issue of devotional service to god is flexible enough to house variety (since its the nature of individuals to house a variety of propensities)
